flowforge_manage_dispositions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds no context on the mixed read/write nature of the actions, permission requirements, or what 'keep_platform_defaults' actually mutates — useful additions that would have raised this score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short lines with the resource definition front-loaded and zero filler. Slightly compressed to the point that the multi-action nature is invisible, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and the nested input schema documents the actions, so the essentials are covered elsewhere. For a six-action tool mixing reads and writes, though, the description never enumerates the actions or warns that some are mutating, leaving an agent to open the schema to understand scope.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The top-level schema exposes a single 'params' object, and coverage is reported as 0%, but the nested $defs actually document action values and field keys in detail. The description contributes conceptual meaning — that dispositions are per-campaign and classify call endings — but provides no direct parameter guidance itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource precisely and even defines it parenthetically ('labels classifying how calls ended'), plus adds a second capability (the outcomes decision). The verb 'manage' is generic and hides that this is a six-action multiplexer, but the resource is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like flowforge_update_campaign_settings or flowforge_get_campaign.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'the outcomes decision a never-run campaign needs before it can start' gives one concrete usage scenario (pre-launch gating), which is genuinely useful context. However, there is no routing guidance for the other five actions, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of which sibling campaign tools to prefer instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.